Jackson ex rel. Field v. Sinclair
Opinion of the Court
It cannot be that the plaintiff’s attorney was warrantable in this hasty proceeding. Here was a decision pronounced at the last moment of the term ; and the plaintiff should have taken no step, till the defendant had a fair opportunity to make his election between a verdict and a bill of exceptions, and procure the verdict or bill to be settled. An application- to the Court frequently becomes necessary to this end. 'I ¿ere is, I believe, no- settled course, in practice,which this matter should, take, as to time or manner; but it is clear,- that" the party ought not to be precluded all benefit from his stipulation,. by the unreasonable hasté of his adversary. He must, in some fair and equitable way, have the benefit of it.
Here has been great haste, but still I do not think we ought to relieve the party, unless he now elect whether he will have á verdict or bill of exceptions, and show a bona fide intention to prosecute á writ of error.]
Platt. . The attorney swears to that intention. As I Understand the practice, this stipulation is itself a stay of all proceedings, at least, for a reasonable time after the decision. We elect to proceed by bill of exceptions.
I have no doubt the- issuing a writ-of possession was irregular. I remember a case in which I was counsel, wherein it was held that the plaintiff was bound by this stipulation to wait a reasonable time, at least, or to apply to the Court for leave to proceed notwithstanding the stipulation.
There can be no doubt that we ought to set aside this writ of possession; but we will think farther upon the question as to the terms, if any, upon which this should- be done, and the ulterior relief to be given.]
At another day,.
said that the Court, on conferring upon this motion, held the proceedings after judgment to be alto
Rule accordingly;
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.